The '''Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondance''' is a three way isomorphism between types (in programming languages), propositions (in logic) and objects of a Cartesian closed [[Category theory|category]]. Interestingly, the isomorphism maps programs (functions in Haskell) to (constructive) proofs in logic (and ''vice versa'').

The '''Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondance''' is a three way isomorphism between types (in programming languages), propositions (in logic) and objects of a Cartesian closed [[Category theory|category]]. Interestingly, the isomorphism maps programs (functions in Haskell) to (constructive) proofs in logic (and ''vice versa'').

So any one of <hask>OK String</hask>, <hask>Warning String</hask> or <hask>Error String</hask> proves the proposition <hask>Message String</hask>, leaving out any two constructors would not invalidate the program. At the same time, a proof of <hask>Message String</hask> can be pattern matched against the constructors to see which one it proves.

So any one of <hask>OK String</hask>, <hask>Warning String</hask> or <hask>Error String</hask> proves the proposition <hask>Message String</hask>, leaving out any two constructors would not invalidate the program. At the same time, a proof of <hask>Message String</hask> can be pattern matched against the constructors to see which one it proves.

Line 55:

Line 57:

The type is, actually, <hask>forall a b c. (a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> (a -> c)</hask>, to be a bit verbose, which says, logically speaking, for all propositions <hask>a, b</hask> and <hask>c</hask>, if from <hask>a</hask>, <hask>b</hask> can be proven, and if from <hask>b</hask>, <hask>c</hask> can be proven, then from <hask>a</hask>, <hask>c</hask> can be proven (the program says how to go about proving: just compose the given proofs!)

The type is, actually, <hask>forall a b c. (a -> b) -> (b -> c) -> (a -> c)</hask>, to be a bit verbose, which says, logically speaking, for all propositions <hask>a, b</hask> and <hask>c</hask>, if from <hask>a</hask>, <hask>b</hask> can be proven, and if from <hask>b</hask>, <hask>c</hask> can be proven, then from <hask>a</hask>, <hask>c</hask> can be proven (the program says how to go about proving: just compose the given proofs!)

+

+

== Negation ==

+

Of course, there's not much you can do with just truth. <hask>forall b. a -> b</hask> says that given <hask>a</hask>, we can infer anything. Therefore we will take <hask>forall b. a -> b</hask> as meaning <hask>not a</hask>. Given this, we can prove several more of the axioms of logic.

+

+

<haskell>

+

type Not x = (forall a. x -> a)

+

+

doubleNegation :: x -> Not (Not x)

+

doubleNegation k pr = pr k

+

+

contraPositive :: (a -> b) -> (Not b -> Not a)

+

contraPositive fun denyb showa = denyb (fun showa)

+

+

deMorganI :: (Not a, Not b) -> Not (Either a b)

+

deMorganI (na, _) (Left a) = na a

+

deMorganI (_, nb) (Right b) = nb b

+

+

deMorganII :: Either (Not a) (Not b) -> Not (a,b)

+

deMorganII (Left na) (a, _) = na a

+

deMorganII (Right nb) (_, b) = nb b

+

</haskell>

== Type classes ==

== Type classes ==

Line 66:

Line 89:

means, logically, there is a type <hask>a</hask> for which the type <hask>a -> a -> Bool</hask> is inhabited, or, from <hask>a</hask> it can be proved that <hask>a -> a -> Bool</hask> (the class promises two different proofs for this, having names <hask>==</hask> and <hask>/=</hask>).

means, logically, there is a type <hask>a</hask> for which the type <hask>a -> a -> Bool</hask> is inhabited, or, from <hask>a</hask> it can be proved that <hask>a -> a -> Bool</hask> (the class promises two different proofs for this, having names <hask>==</hask> and <hask>/=</hask>).

−

This proposition is of existential nature (not to be confused with [[existential type]]). A proof for this proposition (that there is a type that conforms to the specification) is (obviously) a set of proofs of the advertized proposition (an implementation), by an <hask>instance</hask>

+

This proposition is of existential nature (not to be confused with [[existential type]]). A proof for this proposition (that there is a type that conforms to the specification) is (obviously) a set of proofs of the advertised proposition (an implementation), by an <hask>instance</hask>

declaration:

declaration:

Line 78:

Line 101:

</haskell>

</haskell>

−

A not-so-efficient Quicksort implementation would be:

+

A not-so-efficient sort implementation would be:

<haskell>

<haskell>

−

quickSort [] = []

+

sort [] = []

−

quickSort (x : xs) = quickSort lower ++ [x] ++ quickSort higher

+

sort (x : xs) = sort lower ++ [x] ++ sort higher

−

where lower = filter (<= x) xs

+

where (lower,higher) = partition (< x) xs

−

higher = filter (> x) xs

+

</haskell>

</haskell>

−

Haskell infers its type to be <hask>forall a. (Ord a) => [a] -> [a]</hask>. It means, if a type <hask>a</hask> satisfies the proposition about propositions <hask>Ord</hask> (that is, has an ordering defined, as is necessary for comparison), then <hask>quickSort</hask> is a proof of <hask>[a] -> [a]</hask>. For this to work, somewhere, it should be proved (that is, the comparison functions defined) that <hask>Ord a</hask> is true.

+

Haskell infers its type to be <hask>forall a. (Ord a) => [a] -> [a]</hask>. It means, if a type <hask>a</hask> satisfies the proposition about propositions <hask>Ord</hask> (that is, has an ordering defined, as is necessary for comparison), then <hask>sort</hask> is a proof of <hask>[a] -> [a]</hask>. For this to work, somewhere, it should be proved (that is, the comparison functions defined) that <hask>Ord a</hask> is true.

== Multi-parameter type classes ==

== Multi-parameter type classes ==

−

Haskell makes frequent use of multiparameter type classes. Type classes use a logic language (Prolog-like), and for multiparamter type classes they define a relation between types.

These type level functions are set-theoretic. That is, <hask> class TypeClass a b | a -> b</hask> defines a relation between types <hask>a</hask> and <hask>b</hask>, and requires that there would not be different instances of <hask>TypeClass a b</hask> and <hask>TypeClass a c</hask> for different <hask>b</hask> and <hask>c</hask>, so that, essentially, <hask>b</hask> can be inferred as soon as <hask>a</hask> is known. This is precisely functions as relations as prescribed by set theory.

These type level functions are set-theoretic. That is, <hask> class TypeClass a b | a -> b</hask> defines a relation between types <hask>a</hask> and <hask>b</hask>, and requires that there would not be different instances of <hask>TypeClass a b</hask> and <hask>TypeClass a c</hask> for different <hask>b</hask> and <hask>c</hask>, so that, essentially, <hask>b</hask> can be inferred as soon as <hask>a</hask> is known. This is precisely functions as relations as prescribed by set theory.

The Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondance is a three way isomorphism between types (in programming languages), propositions (in logic) and objects of a Cartesian closed category. Interestingly, the isomorphism maps programs (functions in Haskell) to (constructive) proofs in logic (and vice versa).

Of course, atomic propositions contribute little towards knowledge, and the Haskell type system incorporates the logical connectives and , though heavily disguised.
Haskell handles conjuction in the manner described by Intuitionistic Logic. When a program has type , the value returned itself indicates which one. The algebraic data types in Haskell has a tag on each alternative, the constructor, to indicate the injections:

The conjuction is handled via an isomorphism in Closed Cartesian Categories in general (Haskell types belong to this category): .
That is, instead of a function from to Z, we can have a function that takes an argument of type X and returns another function of type , that is, a function that takes Y to give (finally) a result of type Z: this technique is (known as currying) logically means .

(insert quasi-funny example here)

So in Haskell, currying takes care of the connective. Logically, a proof of is a pair (a,b) of proofs of the propositions. In Haskell, to have the final C value, values of both A and B have to be supplied (in turn) to the (curried) function.

).
This proposition is of existential nature (not to be confused with existential type). A proof for this proposition (that there is a type that conforms to the specification) is (obviously) a set of proofs of the advertised proposition (an implementation), by an